Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,497 Year: 6,754/9,624 Month: 94/238 Week: 11/83 Day: 2/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No One Sees God
Raphael
Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 3 of 18 (717466)
01-27-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-26-2014 5:58 PM


Hi there!
You have made quite a few interesting statements here. I will give this book a look and get back to you once I am more informed. Looking forward to discussion.
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-26-2014 5:58 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 4 of 18 (717480)
01-28-2014 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-26-2014 5:58 PM


Commonality
Alright. So I have not read the whole book, nor even a majority of it, but I did look into it quite extensively and read up on Michael Novak.
I am, of course, in no position to judge you. But I find much what you say here to be quite interesting. It sounds, looking at your overall theme, you have failed to understand the purpose of this book.
From my reading, I get the impression that Novak approaches this entire topic with a tone of humility and non-bias, going so far as to write in the preface that those who laugh at his beliefs may in fact be "right at the end of all things." This area of writing, at least from the Christian perspective, is often plagued with polemic and defensiveness and yet Novak writes in a completely contrary manner.
On page xxiiii Novak makes his thesis clear: "nonbelievers and believers alike need to learn a new habit of reasoned and mutually respectable conversation."
Throughout the book, it appears that Novak is trying to exhort both sides of the equation by finding commonality between the two, mainly human suffering.
You wrote:
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
My main interest besides the ID debate is to understand how Christians think so that the book I am writing will not offend Christians so much that they think I have no compassion or respect for them.This is a bit hard for me because I have little respect for how Christianity was created out of other peoples myths historically and used to repress and conquer nonbelievers for a political agenda. Using historical data I can show that Christianity is based on Judaism which was based around Tribal Deities of the Canaanites and Babylonians. This is sort of an impasse for me having a dialogue with believers.
Here you have clearly demonstrated that you are unwilling to work towards commonality and mutual respect between different sides of this debate simply because of an assumption made on your part.
.This is a bit hard for me because I have little respect for how Christianity was created out of other peoples myths historically and used to repress and conquer nonbelievers for a political agenda.
While this may be true, you have not proven it thus, therefore your reasoning for rejecting Novak's proposal for community and respect is faulty. If you had proven that Christianity was created out of other peoples myths historically before making your assumption, it would be a conclusion instead of an assumption.
I say none of this because I specifically disagree with you, although I basically do I just hope that in everything surrounding this dialogue both sides of the ID debate can approach one another with respect and to knock a respected writer's appeal for commonality simply because of an assumption you had previously made doesn't really seem fair. Just some thoughts
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-26-2014 5:58 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-02-2014 1:35 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 6 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-05-2014 12:16 AM Raphael has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 8 of 18 (718407)
02-06-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-05-2014 12:16 AM


Re: Commonality
In everything you have written, I have appreciated your quest to appeal to both sides of this debate and the respect by which you have done so.
It is super refreshing to see somebody who does not see things as black and white, and asking questions that are difficult for both sides to answer. All too often we get so caught up in the debate we forget there are certain things we can agree about not understanding. I respect your fair treatment of both sides. So thank you
But I stil do have a problem with some assumptions.
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
his is not a personal assumption on my part.
When I say assumption, I mean statements like these
- ...a human like God that sacrifices himself to himself in payment for our inherent animal nature so that if we accept human sacrifice we can live forever on a cloud worshiping said deity
- If I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to you that the whole Genesis story is plagiarism from the Polytheist Cultures and no more a real account of creation of our world then The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh you would not conclude that God is not real
- The Theist assumes that if I reject Organized Religion that I completely side with Atheist.
- And it is only because of Atheist and Christian Heretics or other Freethinkers that we have any freedom or happiness at all.
- It is delusional to think that we know for a fact that one of the religions on Earth explains anything about our existence or the ultimate purpose of life both because there is no evidence that any religion is true and because there is plenty of evidence that all religions are completely man made for the political purpose of enslaving mankind
- They further conclude that God must be supernatural and that the soul is a ghost in the machine
Statements like these are assumptions, based on presuppositions. These presuppositions may prove to be true, and you may be able to do that here, but to state them as truth doesn't really make sense, you know?
I cannot speak from the atheistic perspective, since that has not been my journey, but I will attempt to speak from the Theist one.
I'm sure you have done legitimate research to back up your positions, and feel confidant that what you have assumed to be true about Creationists is true, but I can confidently state that I believe none of the things you have pegged on to Creationism and I am a Creationist in the traditional, literal interpretation sense.
Further, all your assumptions are common misconceptions and I would not be so quick to peg them as assumptions if they were not so common. Let's take the third one listed^ above.
The Theist assumes that if I reject Organized Religion that I completely side with Atheist.
Again, I am a traditional Theist. I believe in a personal God, ONE who created the earth in 6 literal days, answers prayers, and reveals himself in the world today. I am a part of a church community and am in my last undergraduate year studying to be a minister within the organization of the church. And I would never make such an assumption. In fact, Organized Religion is, often, the worst misrepresentation of Jesus on this earth. The church today is nothing like its beginnings. But sadly, humanity is self-centered and the church has become the same way. So, in short, if you reject Organized Religion, personally, I would side with you in favor of healing the sick, clothing the naked, and setting the oppressed free. That's what Jesus taught and if I'm a "Christian" that's what it means; to follow the way of Christ.
Personally, I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misconception about the other side's position. Take this one, for example:
They further conclude that God must be supernatural and that the soul is a ghost in the machine
This is an intricate one, almost a double misconception. The first one is from the atheistic side, assuming the position of Scripture is that the human has an immortal soul. It may be the position of traditional evangelical christianity, but it is not the position of scripture. I may be begging my own question, but for the sake of the argument let's say that it's true. The second, is, when you come to the atheistic position that they reject the "ghost in the machine," you see them as unreasonable, when that is a misconception on the atheistic side of things.
So all I'm saying is a better tactic for us to be able to dialogue would be to properly understand the position of the other side.
Let's take this last one here:
It is delusional to think that we know for a fact that one of the religions on Earth explains anything about our existence or the ultimate purpose of life both because there is no evidence that any religion is true and because there is plenty of evidence that all religions are completely man made for the political purpose of enslaving mankind
This one is the most abrasive for me. It is abrasive because, in spite of your unique "middle ground" approach, it is altogether a common argument. I do not disagree that religion, for the most part, is completely man made with the political purpose of enslaving mankind. Religion is good at that. Christianity however, is the complete opposite. Or at least was in its inception. While many (not all) religions are based on how humanity can get to God/gods Christianity tells the story of how God came to humanity. Now while many different religious groups have stories of gods/god who comes to earth, the fundamental difference is that they still end up in a state of having to do specific things to unlock and interact with the supernatural. The biggest difference that I see, is that Christianity, in its truest sense, was a group dedicated to the way of their martyr, who began a wholeistic, sharing, socialistic society in response to witnessing that martyrs resurrection. It was not a created system endorsed politically but actually just kind of a Way that grew, as Christ's followers did all they could do further the cause they had been given. That's where I'm not quite understanding you I guess.
So there are some of my views. I would like to affirm you though, I really appreciated this:
A complete lack of integrity is demonstrated when one sees Christians still promoting Creationism of Genesis while paying lip service to pursuing the Scientific Basis for Intelligent Design.
I appreciate this because it is exactly what the problem is with the Creationist side of the ID issue. Creationism, at its core, is the belief in a great "other," some supernatural element, referred to by most theists as "God," who created the universe. The trouble is when Creationists try to use science to prove Biblical Creation. Science, by it's nature, cannot observe something that is outside the natural realm. It simply cannot speak on anything outside of what is observable and testable. Not that it should, it just doesn't need to. Therefore, God (the creator for most Christian theists) really does not need us to prove him with science. There are other ways to prove his existence, but science cannot be one of them. That's just working on the non-believer's terms. I find it interesting that so many creationists (many on this forum) attempt to try and prove Creationism with science only to be totally shut down by opponents and turn to frustration, insults, and behaviour altogether unfortunate for believers in the Way of Christ.
All in all, thanks for being so open minded and I look forward to more discussion as you read more of the book!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-05-2014 12:16 AM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2014 9:01 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 02-17-2014 9:57 AM Raphael has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 15 of 18 (720495)
02-24-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
02-17-2014 9:57 AM


Re: Commonality
Larni writes:
How do you square that with the Bible(KJV1611)?
Jesus writes:
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Ezekiel 18:4Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Hi there! This is an incredibly complicated topic and I fear I cannot do it justice in a single post here. But in short, all the texts you quoted are illustrations in scripture on the destructible nature of the soul, not it's immortality. This may be an...odd thing to say given the mainstream nature of the belief in an inherently immortal soul.
But take Jesus' words in Matthew:
Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Jesus speaking to the apostles, encouraging them in the fact that this world is not our home. They had no need to fear those who can kill the body, because only God can destroy both body and soul.
Ezekiel
Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Throughout the Old Testament particularly, the language used on the soul is so very wholistic in its nature. Here we have an example of the writer referring to a human as a soul, I. E. "the soul the sinneth, it shall die." This type of thing, referring to a person as a living soul is very common throughout; we can even see it in verses like Genesis 2:7, Leviticus 21:1, Number 9:6, Lam. 3:25, and others. The point is not that there is no soul/spirit in humanity, but rather that the soul is from God, breathed into Adam at creation. So it makes perfect sense for God to say things like "all souls are mine" because they literally are. Nowhere in scripture does the soul have an existence independant from the body.
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
New Testament texts like this are a little more complicated, taking into account the views of the writer and popular beliefs of the time, but those things aside, this text is in harmony with the view that the soul is not inherently immortal. If the soul/spirit can be lost, then it is not inherently immortal, because it would have to go on existing somewhere somehow.
I hope this explains my views! Perhaps one of these days I will have time to start a thread on this topic, but I'm swamped with homework these days! Haha. Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 02-17-2014 9:57 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024